Devil’s advocate, in a dense suburban setting it keeps that land from being paved over and turned into a commercial zone. But when it is in a rural setting, absolutely.
I don’t agree. It’s not like the land being used in that urban setting is home to wildlife. It’s not filled with trees. It’s a giant lawn that gets watered every day and if you want to be there, you have to pay. I don’t see that as being an improvement to anything else in a city.
Golf courses, at least the ones I’ve been to, have tons of trees. They’re usually densely forested in the areas between holes to make a sort of barrier. And I certainly see more wildlife on a golf course than in, say, the parking lot of a strip mall.
I guess this is the internet and being deliberately obtuse is just to be expected. Pretty much every golf course in a highly urban area would just be more buildings if they didn’t exist.
What if it is slightly less dense than what you call dense? Then it’s still the most dense suburban area possible. Clearly there are still varying levels of density within areas not dense enough to be urban.
Look at what people in NYC and north east NJ call suburban, then look at what someone in upstate NY calls suburban. Density is very different. Look at it as a scale. Dense Urban, Urban, light urban, dense suburban, suburban, etc. I am specifically pointing at places like in NJ where it would more likely be turned into a mall than a park.
Devil’s advocate, in a dense suburban setting it keeps that land from being paved over and turned into a commercial zone. But when it is in a rural setting, absolutely.
I don’t agree. It’s not like the land being used in that urban setting is home to wildlife. It’s not filled with trees. It’s a giant lawn that gets watered every day and if you want to be there, you have to pay. I don’t see that as being an improvement to anything else in a city.
Golf courses, at least the ones I’ve been to, have tons of trees. They’re usually densely forested in the areas between holes to make a sort of barrier. And I certainly see more wildlife on a golf course than in, say, the parking lot of a strip mall.
I found a squirrel’s nest on one course with about a hundred golf balls in it. And I’ve gotten chased off my tee shot by a bull elk.
Those animals are there despite the course, not because of the course. Golf courses are not wildlife habitats.
Take a look at New York City and tell me where the animals are.
The High Line Park for one. There’s also another huge park in central Manhattan you may have heard of, but the name escapes me.
I guess this is the internet and being deliberately obtuse is just to be expected. Pretty much every golf course in a highly urban area would just be more buildings if they didn’t exist.
You mean like those two parks I mentioned? Just more buildings?
First of all, this…
…is an oxymoron.
Second, in the hierarchy of urban greenspace, golf courses are only one step up from the very bottom (just above private lawns).
not all suburbia is north american ffs
So? Whether it’s North America or elsewhere, if it’s dense it’s “urban,” not “suburban.”
What if it is slightly less dense than what you call dense? Then it’s still the most dense suburban area possible. Clearly there are still varying levels of density within areas not dense enough to be urban.
Look at what people in NYC and north east NJ call suburban, then look at what someone in upstate NY calls suburban. Density is very different. Look at it as a scale. Dense Urban, Urban, light urban, dense suburban, suburban, etc. I am specifically pointing at places like in NJ where it would more likely be turned into a mall than a park.
If you want to preserve the land then make it a public park where everyone can enjoy it not just the rich jerks who can afford to pay to be there
Many towns have public courses which are just as described.
Ideally sure, but we are dealing with capitalism. In a high populated area people will want to find a way to profit over every inch.